IDENTIFICATION AND RECOVERY OF FINGERPRINTS FROM GLASS

FRAGMENTS IN MOLOTOV COCKTAIL CASES

SYED AHMAD NAZMI BIN SAYED MOHAMAD

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA

IDENTIFICATION AND RECOVERY OF FINGERPRINTS FROM GLASS

FRAGMENTS IN MOLOTOV COCKTAIL CASES

SYED AHMAD NAZMI BIN SAYED MOHAMAD

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of

the degree of Master of Science (Forensic Science)

Faculty of Science

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

JANUARY 2013

iii

Specially dedicated to my beloved family

Ku, Mak, Nadia, Burhan, Fatin and Syafiq. Thank you for your love and support.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I wish to acknowledge my main supervisor Associate Professor Dr.

Mohd Shahru Bahari for his support, encouragement and guidance from the very

beginning until the end. I would also like to thank my co-supervisors, Superintendent

Ng Song Huat from Fingerprint Section, PDRM Forensic Laboratory, Cheras and

Assistant Fire Commissioner, Tn. Azlimin Mat Noor from Fire and Rescue

Department of Malaysia, Cyberjaya. I am grateful and indebted to them for their

sincere, valuable guidance extended to me and for providing me with all the

necessary facilities. My appreciation is also extended to Mahadir Mohd Noh and

firemen from Fire and Rescue Department of Pandan Indah, Kuala Lumpur, who

help me in sampling process, Inspector Syed Faizul Shah from PDRM Forensic

Laboratory, Cheras who supervised and guided me at the simulation scene, and En.

Puwira Jaya Othman from PDRM headquaters, Bukit Aman, Kuala Lumpur for his

knowledge and assistance in the analysis of fingerprints. Also, thank to Associate

Professor Dr. Umi Kalthom Ahmad, for her guidance and advices, especially in areas

relating to forensic field.

Sincere thank to my dear fellow postgraduates in Forensic Science for their

help and encouragement especially to Suriati Abd Latif who helped me in the

analysis of fingerprints, Siti Mariani Yusof and Anita Weinheimer who helped me in

the sampling process. To my parents, Sayed Mohamad Sayed A Rani and Meriam

Malek, thank you for the continuous encouragement and support.

I also would like to thank the Laboratory Assistant En. Mohd Nazri Zainal

and Miss Siti Rafezah Mat Emin and UTM for allowing me to use the equipments

and the laboratory. In the deepest sense of gratitude, I must thank my beloved family

for giving me their blessing to do my thesis here even though they are far. Finally,

not to be forgotten to anyone that contributes on this research project whether

directly or indirectly. I am sincerely grateful to all of them for their willingness to

help and may Allah bless you.

v

ABSTRACT

Increasing reports on Molotov cocktail cases in the local media has warrant a

need for a detailed investigation of the perpetrator of the crime. A study is therefore

embarked to compare fingerprint quality recovered from glass fragments of Molotov

cocktails. The accelerants used were petrol, kerosene, diesel and motor oil. Different

types of accelerant were used to observe the effect of accelerant on the quality of

fingerprint recovered from glass fragment of Molotov cocktails. In the study,

Molotov cocktails were exploded and glass fragments bearing fingerprint marks were

collected and transported back to laboratory for analysis. Prior to fingerprint analysis,

soot were removed from glass fragment using three techniques of brushing, NaOH (2

%) wash solution and tape lifting. After soot removal, enhancement fingerprint were

done by using methods such as dusting method, superglue fuming method and Small

Particle Reagent (SPR) method. Then, fingerprints from glass fragment of Molotov

cocktails were identified by manual matching. Powder dusting method was used for

sample petrol only because most of glass fragment were obtained in dry condition.

Other than that, superglue fuming method was used in majority of sample whether

Molotov cocktails were allowed to burn out naturally or the fire was extinguished

using water. Small particle reagent method was mostly used for the wet glass

fragment. Fingerprints recovered were photographed and were sent for manual

matching. Based on the enhancement fingerprint method used, most of the latent

fingerprint was developed with various qualities. Based on the percent recovery, SPR

method shows the best recovery (43.75 %) at the scale 3 fingerprint, followed by

superglue fuming and dusting powder. In manual matching method, percentage

success rate in the case where fire of Molotov cocktails was allowed to burn out

naturally was 55.56 % while in the case of fire extinguished using water, percentage

success rate was 33.33 %. This study also showed that manual matching method of

fingerprints recovered from Molotov cocktails with fingerprint obtained from suspect

or standard can be done.

vi

ABSTRAK

Peningkatan laporan mengenai kes-kes Molotov cocktail di media tempatan

telah menjamin keperluan untuk siasatan terperinci pelaku jenayah. Oleh itu, satu

kajian dilakukan untuk membandingkan kualiti cap jari yang didapati daripada

serpihan kaca Molotov cocktail. Bahan bakar yang digunakan adalah petrol, minyak

tanah, diesel dan minyak motor. Jenis bahan bakar yang berbeza digunakan untuk

memerhatikan kesan bahan bakar pada kualiti cap jari yang pulih daripada serpihan

kaca Molotov cocktail. Dalam kajian itu, Molotov cocktail diletupkan dan serpihan

kaca yang mengandungi tanda-tanda cap jari dikumpulkan dan diangkut kembali ke

makmal untuk analisis. Sebelum analisis cap jari, jelaga dikeluarkan dari serpihan

kaca menggunakan tiga kaedah iaitu memberus, larutan natrium hidroksida (NaOH)

2 % dan dengan menggunakan pita selofon. Selepas penyingkiran jelaga,

penimbulan cap jari dilakukan dengan menggunakan kaedah yang berbeza seperti

kaedah serbuk cap jari, kaedah superglue fuming dan kaedah Small Particle Reagent

(SPR). Kemudian, cap jari dari serpihan kaca Molotov cocktail dikenal pasti dengan

pemadanan secara manual. Kaedah serbuk cap jari telah digunakan bagi sampel

petrol sahaja kerana kebanyakan serpihan kaca telah diperolehi dalam keadaan

kering. Selain daripada itu, kaedah superglue fuming telah digunakan dalam majoriti

sampel sama ada Molotov cocktail dibenarkan untuk membakar secara semula jadi

atau kebakaran dipadamkan dengan menggunakan air. Kaedah small particle reagent

kebanyakannya digunakan untuk serpihan kaca basah. Gambar cap jari yang

diperoleh dihantar kepada pemadanan manual. Berdasarkan kaedah peningkatan cap

jari yang digunakan, kebanyakan cap jari pendam telah dibangunkan dengan pelbagai

kualiti. Berdasarkan peratus pemulihan, kaedah SPR menunjukkan pemulihan terbaik

(43.75 %) pada cap jari skala 3, diikuti oleh superglue fuming dan serbuk cap jari.

Dalam kaedah pemadanan manual, peratusan kadar kejayaan dalam kes di mana api

Molotov cocktail dibenarkan untuk membakar keluar secara semula jadi adalah 55.56

% manakala dalam kes api Molotov cocktail dipadamkan menggunakan air,

peratusan kadar kejayaan adalah 33.33 %. Berdasarkan hasil kajian ini, padanan cap

jari yang diperolehi daripada Molotov cocktail dengan cap jari yang diperolehi

daripada suspek atau standard yang boleh dilakukan.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENT

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

DECLARATION ii

DEDICATION iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iv

ABSTRACT v

ABSTRAK vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS vii

LIST OF TABLES x

LIST OF FIGURES xi

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS xiv

LIST OF APPENDICES xv

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 Background of study 1

1.2 Statement of problem 2

1.3 Objectives of study 2

1.4 Scope of study 2

1.5 Significance of study 3

2 LITERATURE REVIEW 4

2.1 Fire 4

2.2 Fire Investigation 5

2.3 Molotov Cocktail 6

2.3.1 Molotov Cocktails Incidents in Malaysia 6

2.4 Fingerprints 7

2.4.1 Latent Fingerprints Development 8

viii

2.4.1.1 Dusting Powder Method 9

2.4.1.2 Superglue Fuming Method 10

2.4.1.3 Small Particle Reagent (SPR)

Method

11

2.5 Recovery of Fingerprint on the Glass Fragment of

Molotov Cocktails

11

2.6 Identification of Fingerprint 12

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 13

3.1 Materials and Chemical Reagents 13

3.2 Methodology 13

3.2.1 Laboratory Experiment 14

3.2.2 Ground Experiment 16

3.2.3 Soot Removal Experiment 18

3.2.3.1 Brushing Method 18

3.2.3.2 Solution of NaOH (2%) 18

3.2.3.3 Tape Lifting Method 18

3.2.4 Fingerprint Enhancement Method 19

3.2.4.1 Dusting Powder Method 19

3.2.4.2 Superglue Fuming Method 19

3.2.4.3 Small Particle Reagent (SPR)

Method

19

3.2.5 Fingerprint Identification 20

4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS 21

4.1 Laboratory Simulation 21

4.1.1 Fingerprint Quality 21

4.1.2 Unburned Condition 22

4.1.3 Burned Condition 24

4.1.4 Persistency of Fingerprint Marks 28

4.1.4.1 Unburned Condition 28

4.1.4.2 Burned Condition 29

4.2 Ground Experiment 29

ix

4.2.1 Condition of Sampling 29

4.2.2 Physical Observation 32

4.2.3 Fingerprint Mark Quality 33

4.2.4 Soot Covered Fragments 38

4.2.5 Non Soot Covered Fragments 39

4.2.6 Persistency of Fingerprint Marks 41

4.3 Type of Accelerant 42

4.4 Experimental Difference between Laboratory

Experiment and Ground Experiment

44

4.5 Manual Matching 46

5 CONCLUSIONS 48

5.1 Conclusions 48

5.2 Recommendations 49

REFERENCES 51

Appendices A-F 54 - 65

x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

3.1 Label of samples 17

3.2 Fingerprint rating scale 18

4.1 Fingerprint quality in unburned condition 22

4.2 Fingerprint quality in burned condition 27

xi

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE NO. TITLE PAGE

2.1 Five common fingerprint classes 8

3.1 Setting of control burning and laboratory experiment 16

3.2 Fingerprint rating scale 18

4.1 Quality of fingerprint mark 21

4.2 Development of fingerprint mark 23

4.3 Fingerprint mark recovered using SPR method on

marks doused with kerosene

24

4.4 Soot removal techniques 25

4.5 Soot on oily surface of uncontaminated fingerprint

marks doused with diesel

26

4.6 Fingerprint mark revealed via superglue 28

4.7 Detonation site 30

4.8 Molotov cocktail that were thrown by firemen 30

4.9 Flame and smoke formed when Molotov cocktails hit

on the ground

31

4.10 Distribution of glass fragments while burning and after

burned

31

4.11 Molotov cocktails were extinguished using water 32

xii

4.12 Percentage of fingerprint marks recovered 33

4.13 Number of fingerprint mark recovered and its scale of

quality by using powder dusting, superglue fuming and

small particle reagent method in case fire was allow to

burn out naturally

34

4.14 Number of fingerprint mark recovered and its scale of

quality by using powder dusting, superglue fuming and

small particle reagent method fire was extinguished

using water.

35

4.15 Scale of fingerprint quality obtained by using powder

dusting method

36

4.16 Scale of fingerprint quality obtained by using

superglue fuming method

36

4.17 Scale of fingerprint quality obtained by using small

particle reagent method

37

4.18 Glass fragment which shows the loss of fingerprint

mark after soot removal

39

4.19 Dusting powder develop fingerprint with covered with

dried oil stain

40

4.20 Fingerprint mark appear in smear form and ridge

pattern was not clear

40

4.21 Comparison number of glass fragment analyzed and

number of glass fragment recovered

41

4.22 Fire on the wick only 43

4.23 Mouth of the bottle covered by soot 43

4.24 Glass fragment covered with oily surface 43

4.25 Different condition of glass fragment recovered in the 45

xiii

ground experiment

4.26 Ridges pattern was recovered but size of fingerprint

mark is small and not enough characteristic

45

4.27 Photo before enhancement was not clear compared

than photo obtained after enhancement using RASTAR

47

xiv

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

SPR - Small Particle Reagent

PDRM - Polis Diraja Malaysia

xv

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A Number of soot and non soot covered fragments

recovered in ground experiment

54

B Number of glass fragment recovered in ground

experiment and number of fingerprint mark which

marked with liquid marker recovered from this

experiment

56

C Quality of fingerprint mark which marked with liquid

marker recovered from this experiment

58

D Number of fragment with mark recovered from soot and

non-soot fragment

60

E Quality of fingerprint recovered using dusting powder,

superglue fuming and small particle reagent method

62

F Proceeding paper for ISPC 2012 64

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background of Study

Arson is a crime that may generally be defined as intentional destruction of

property via fire for unlawful purposes (Gannon and Pina, 2010). Arson represents a

serious problem both in cost of human lives and money (Tan et al., 2000). It leads to

major financial damage, serious injury or death around the world (Labree et al.,

2010).

Molotov cocktails or petrol bombs are incendiary devices often used in war,

terrorism, riot and civil unrest situations due to the availability of materials and ease

of manufacture. Fingerprints are always available from the shattered glass of

Molotov cocktails. Recovery of fingerprints on the glass fragment of Molotov

cocktails debris would be a greater evidential value, directly linking the suspect with

the bottle that has been thrown (Stow and McGurry, 2006).

Fire investigators always ignore the glass fragment of Molotov cocktails to be

collected as evidence. They always believe fingerprints on glass fragment will be

destroyed by fire. Although many of the fingerprints will be destroyed by fire, some

will survive even on the incendiary device (Stow and McGurry, 2006).

2

1.2 Statement of Problem

In riot or civil unrest situations cases, arsonists often use Molotov cocktail as

their incendiary devices. The types of accelerant used as fuel differ based on the

availability of accelerant. When an arsonist carries a Molotov cocktail to the scene,

their fingerprint will be deposited on the item. Fire investigators always believe the

fingerprints on glass fragments will be destroyed by fire and did not collected the

evidence. This study is designed to study possibility of recovering fingerprints in

Molotov cocktail cases and the effects of accelerant towards the recovery of the

fingerprints. Quality of fingerprint was analysed based on the different fingerprint

recovery techniques. With the available standards to be matched, these fingerprints

could be used as a critical evidence in arson cases.

1.3 Objectives of Study

The objectives of this study are:

1) To recover the fingerprint marks on the glass fragment of Molotov

cocktails by using the dusting method, superglue fuming method and

Small Particle Reagent (SPR) method.

2) To identify the fingerprint that has been obtained from the fragment of

Molotov cocktails.

3) To compare the quality of the recovered fingerprint based on the

different recovery techniques.

1.4 Scope of Study

This study is carried out to determine the possibility of recovering fingerprint

marks on the glass fragment which have been covered by soot. Petrol, kerosene,

diesel and motor oil will be used in this study as an accelerant. Three methods will

3

be applied in the soot removal from glass fragment. The methods are brushing,

NaOH wash solution and tape lifting. After the removal of soot, the enhancement of

fingerprint marks will be done by using dusting powder, superglue fuming and Small

Particle Reagent (SPR) methods. Then, fingerprints will be identified and the

qualities from the different technique compared.

1.5 Significance of Study

This study would help and facilitate the investigator who will be handling

Molotov cocktails cases either from the Fire and Rescue Department, the Royal

Police or the Chemistry Department. This study may assist the analyst in choosing

the most suitable method for fingerprint enhancement based on the type of accelerant

used in Molotov cocktail. In addition, it may also help with study and comparison of

the quality of fingerprint recovered from glass fragment of Molotov cocktail based

on different enhancement fingerprint technique.

REFERENCES

Ahmad, U. K., Mei, Y. S., Bahari, M. S., Paramasivam, V. K. (2011). The

Effectiveness of Soot Removal Techniques for the Recovery of

Fingerprints on Glass Fire Debris in Petrol Bomb Cases. Malay. J. Anal.

Sci. 15 (No 2), 191-201.

Barclay, R. (2004). Charging and Fingerprint Database Information. Crown

prosecution service London, SCS Circular.

Bertsch, W., and Ren, Q. (2000). The Chemical Analysis of Fire Debris for

Potential Accelerants. Tuscaloosa, USA, Elsevier.

Biedermann, A., Taroni, F., Delemont, O., Semadeni, C., Davidson, A. C. (2005).

The Evaluation of Evidence in the Forensic Investigation of Fire Incidents

(Part I): An Approach Using Bayesian Networks. Forensic Sci. Int.,

147 (1), 49-57.

Borneo Post (2012, July 26). Businesswoman’s house hit by Molotov cocktail

(retrieved on Jan 2, 2013).

Cucè, P., Polimeni, G., Lazzara, A. P., De Fulvio, G. (2004). Small Particle

Reagents Technique can Help to Point out Wet Latent Fingerprints.

Forensic Sci. Int., 146, 7-8.

Dean, J. (2006). Recovery Fingerprint from Fire Scenes and Associated Evidence.

Sci. & justice, 46, 153-168.

Delémont, O., and Martin, J. C. (2007). Application of Computational Fluid

Dynamics Modelling in the Process of Forensic Fire Investigation: Problems

and Solutions. Forensic Sci. Int., 167 (2-3), 127-135.

Dhole, V. R., Kurhekar, M. P., Ambade, K. A. (1995). Detection of Petroleum

Accelerant Residues on Partially Burnt Objects in Burning/arson Offences.

Sci. & Justice, 35 (3), 217-221.

Egli, N., M., Champed, C., Margot, P. (2007). Evidence Evaluation in Fingerprint

Comparison and Automated Fingerprint Identification Systems - Modelling

within Finger Variability. Forensic Sci. Int., 167, 189-195.

Elkayam, R., Rhima, I., Shelef, R. (1996). Optimization of Small Particle Reagent

for the Development of Latent Fingerprints from Glass Surfaces Washed in

Accelerant Fluids. J. Forensic Ident., 46 (5), 561-564.

52

Fawaz, K. S. (2006). Fires and Related Incidents in Jordan (1996–2004). Fire Safety

J. 41 (5), 370-376.

Gannon, T. A., and Pina, A. (2010). Firesetting: Psychopathology, Theory and

Treatment. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15 (3), 224-238.

Jasuja, O. P., Singh, G. D., Sodhi, G. S. (2008). Small Particle Reagents:

Development of Fluorescent Variants. Sci. & Justice, 48 (3), 141-145.

John, D. D. (2007). Fire Scene Reconstruction. Crime Reconstruction.

Burlington, Academic Press, 361-417.

Labree, W., Nijman, H., van Marle, H., Rassin, E. (2010). Backgrounds and

Characteristics of Arsonists. Int. J. Law and Psychiatry, 33 (3), 149-153.

Lee, H. C., and Gaensslen, R. E. (1991). Advances in Fingerprint Technology. New

York, Elsevier.

Manhua, L. (2010). Fingerprint Classification based on Adaboost Learning from

Singularity Features. Pattern Recognition, 43 (3), 1062-1070.

Mark, L, S. (2008). Fire Investigation and Ignitable Liquid Residue Analysis—A

review: 2001–2007. Forensic Sci. Int., 176 (2-3), 93-110.

New Strait Times (2012, July 19). Arsonist threw what believed to be a molotov

cocktail (retrieved on Jan 2, 2013).

Olsen, R. D., and Lee, H. C. (2001). Identification of Latent Prints. Advance in

Fingerprint Technology. Washington, DC, USA. CRC Press.

Paine, M., Bandey, H. L., Bleay, S. M., Wilson. H. (2011). The Effect of Relative

Humidity on the Effectiveness of the Cyanoacrylate Fuming Process for

Fingermark Development and on the Microstructure of the Developed Marks.

Forensic Sci. Int., 212 (1-3), 130-142.

Sears, V., G., Bleay, S., M., Bandey, H., L., Bowman, V. J. (2011). A Methodology

for Fingermark Research. Sci. & Justice, 52 (3), 145-160.

Shelef, R., Levy, A., Rhima, I., Tsaroom, S., Elkayam, R. (1996). Development of

Latent Fingerprints from Unignited Incendiary Bottles. J. Forensic Ident. 46

(5), 557-560.

Sodhi, G. S., and. Kaur, J. (2001). Powder Method for Detecting Latent Fingerprints:

a Review. Forensic Sci. Int., 120 (3), 172-176.

Stow, K. M., and Mc Gurry, J. (2006). The Recovery of Finger Marks from Soot-

covered Glass Fire Debris. Sci. & Justice, 46 (1), 3-14.

53

Tan, B., Hardy, J. K., Snavely, R. E. (2000). Accelerant Classification by Gas

Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry and Multivariate Pattern Recognition.

Anal. Chim. Act, 422 (1), 37-46.

The Star (2010, March 7). Arson attack on Hindu Sangam’s members (retrieved on

Jan 2, 2013).

The Star (2010, January 11). New cases of attempted arson and vandalism being

probed (retrieved on Jan 2, 2013).

Wurmb, N. V., Meissner, D., Wegener, R. (2001). Influence of Cyanoacrylate on the

Efficiency of Forensic PCRs. Forensic Sci. Int., 124 (1), 11-16.

Whyte, C., Wyche, K. P., Kholia, M., Ellis, A. M., Monks, P. S. (2007). Fast

Fingerprinting of Arson Accelerants by Proton Transfer Reaction Time-of-

Flight Mass Spectrometry. Int. J. Mass Spec., 263 (2-3), 222-232.

Yao, W., Zhang, J., Nadjai, A., Beji, T., Delichatsios, M. A. (2011). A Global Soot

Model Developed for Fires: Validation in Laminar Flames and Application in

Turbulent Pool Fires. Fire Safety J., 46 (7), 371-387.

Yun, E. K., and Cho, S. B. (2006). Adaptive Fingerprint Image Enhancement with

Fingerprint Image Quality Analysis. Image and Vision Computing, 24 (1),

101-110.